MOSCOW, June 25. /TASS/. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is visiting Washington to smooth things over between US President Donald Trump and alliance member states; Congress has prohibited Trump from taking military action against Iran; and the EU and NATO have shown no willingness to negotiate a mutual non-aggression treaty with Russia. These stories topped Thursday’s newspaper headlines across Russia.
Izvestia: Rutte travels to Washington in bid to prevent NATO split
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is urgently seeking to smooth over disagreements among alliance members ahead of the July summit in Ankara. His official visit to Washington began on June 24, during which he is seeking to present the US’ European allies in a more favorable light. For now, US President Donald Trump is reportedly furious over his partners’ refusal to participate in the Middle East conflict. As a punitive measure, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has already announced a review of the military presence in Europe; US forces allotted for NATO operations are also being reduced. However, experts are convinced that a US withdrawal from the alliance is impossible; Trump is merely bargaining to extract concessions from Europe.
Trump hinted at withdrawing from NATO even during his first term, but no one paid much attention at the time. Now, however, the conflict in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East have exposed all of the alliance's problems. Still, a total collapse is unlikely, experts say. For that to happen, Congress would have to withdraw from the NATO treaty. However, most of its members lack the political will and interest to do so, Matthew Hoh, a former US Marine Corps captain and former State Department and Pentagon official, told Izvestia. According to him, almost all Democrats – and indeed many Republicans – consider it necessary to maintain the status quo in relations with Europe and NATO allies.
Trump has stirred up NATO before meetings with Rutte in the past. This is merely a negotiating tactic to secure greater involvement from certain countries in the alliance’s activities, rather than an attempt to radically change US policy toward an alliance that has existed for 77 years, Saeed Khan, a professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, noted. The US president may use another one of his many threats to withdraw the US from NATO, either partially or completely, to secure additional concessions and promises from other alliance countries, the expert said.
If a decision is made to partially withdraw US troops, Trump will likely cite the failure of European allies to increase military spending as an official pretext, Hoh stressed. Belgium, Portugal, and Luxembourg are already falling behind their spending targets, and Spain has refused to meet the target of spending 5% of its GDP. However, the geography of the US presence will not change significantly. Trump may prefer to strengthen the US presence in countries that he believes are handling this better, reducing the presence in others.
Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Trump's fellow party members block him from going to war with Iran
US President Donald Trump has been prevented from taking military action against Iran. The Senate passed a corresponding resolution that had previously been approved by the House of Representatives, the lower chamber of Congress. Yet, in both chambers, the Republican Party – to which Trump belongs – holds a majority. The document itself is unlikely to significantly impact Trump’s plans; the resolution is not binding and does not have the force of law. Nevertheless, this is an important indicator for the president: even his own party members do not support his potential war. Moreover, this disapproval could affect the Republican Party’s results in the midterm congressional elections in November.
"A resolution is not a law. It does not require the president’s signature. Accordingly, it is more declarative than legal in nature," Alexandra Voitolovskaya, a senior researcher in the US Foreign and Domestic Policy Sector at the Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations under the Russian Academy of Sciences, told Nezavisimaya Gazeta. The resolution was adopted under the 1973 War Powers Act. It requires that, "in all possible cases," the US president consult with Congress before deploying the country’s armed forces abroad and initiating military operations. Trump and his Republican allies are questioning the legality of this legislative act.
Although the adopted resolution cannot force Trump to call a ceasefire, the US leader should take note that such a document has been adopted. "Initially, when the US and Israel first began their military operations against Iran, approximately 73% of Americans said they did not feel safe. This was due to fears of a repeat of the September 11 terrorist attacks and of other potential attacks on US soil. Americans remain very afraid of such an outcome," the expert emphasized, adding that the overwhelming majority does not approve of military action in Iran. That figure is about 60%. "This 60% consists mainly of Democrats, but a fairly large number of Republicans also do not support actions in the Middle East. In other words, this policy is generally not very popular among American citizens," Voitolovskaya said.
"November 3 is just around the corner, when the US will hold midterm congressional elections. The president’s policies could directly influence the results of the primaries already underway. They will undoubtedly affect the Republican Party’s results as well. Therefore, Trump must be mindful of his actions and take public opinion into account," the expert noted. She also pointed out that the current attempt at reconciliation and Washington’s suspension of active measures are driven precisely by the domestic political situation.
Izvestia: Brussels rejecting discussion of non-aggression guarantees with Russia
The EU and NATO have shown no willingness to negotiate a mutual non-aggression treaty. Moscow proposed a legally binding agreement to be concluded in 2025, but the proposal was ignored. The key issue is the unresolved Ukrainian crisis. Without providing Russia with credible security guarantees, a conflict settlement is impossible. Meanwhile, the EU is increasing its military spending and support for Ukraine's armed forces, and Kiev is intensifying its strikes on Russian civilian infrastructure.
Security dialogue between Russia and Europe has been frozen since the beginning of the special military operation. "We've only heard what was essentially shouted through a megaphone via the media. I haven’t noticed any signals indicating the West’s readiness to talk with Russia about these issues," Russian Foreign Ministry's European Affairs Department Director Vladislav Maslennikov told Izvestia.
Rhetoric about the so-called Russian threat is used as a domestic justification for increasing military budgets and expanding the defense industry, political scientist Dmitry Solonnikov emphasized. "It is important for Europe to maintain its readiness to repel ‘Russian aggression.’ To this end, there must be no obstacles capable of undermining their plans, including at the rhetorical sphere," he added.
At the same time, the issue of concluding a legally binding mutual non-aggression pact between Russia and Western countries is only part of the broader question of the future security system. "The format is a secondary matter. We need the most reliable security guarantees. That is what matters most. The form this will take is another question," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko stressed.
It is hardly possible to conclude an agreement on security guarantees today, since Russia and the West do not trust each other, Solonnikov said. "We are waiting for Europe to change its position so that it can be trusted to sign treaties. For now, the situation remains uncertain," the expert added.
According to Yevgeny Semibratov, deputy director of the Institute for Strategic Studies and Forecasts at the Russian University of People's Friendship, European statements about their readiness to engage with Moscow are primarily intended to publicly demonstrate their openness to negotiations. According to the expert, in practice, they do not expect such a dialogue to end successfully, and if it collapses, Europe will try to shift the blame onto Russia.
Kommersant: Russia not expecting robust economic growth in second quarter
Data on industrial production in May, published by the Federal Service for State Statistics on June 24, confirmed doubts about the durability of Russia’s economic recovery in the second quarter. Industrial output continues to decline after seasonal adjustment, consumer sentiment is deteriorating, and support from the export sector may weaken following the drop in commodity prices. Given this situation, expectations for an economic growth acceleration appear less encouraging than they did just a few weeks ago.
The previously published breakdown of first-quarter GDP showed that industrial production was one of the main factors behind the economic slowdown. However, most analysts still view the sector as a source of growth. The slowdown in GDP growth is not limited to manufacturing. According to analysts’ estimates, the share of sectors growing faster than 2% year-over-year has been close to zero for two consecutive quarters now, a sign that the range of sectors driving economic growth is narrowing further.
Economist Dmitry Polevoy agreed with this analysis. According to his calculations, the share of gross value added accounted for by sectors where output declined compared to the previous quarter rose from 24% in the fourth quarter of 2025 to 71% in the first quarter of 2026. Only the second quarter of 2020, during the pandemic, saw a worse situation. The expert told Kommersant that "a significant part of the economy has long been in a state of recession, and overall growth hardly looks typical."
Raiffeisenbank analysts noted that manufacturing, construction, transportation, warehousing, and a number of other major economic sectors showed negative growth in the first quarter. Meanwhile, public administration and military security contributed approximately 0.4 percentage points to annual GDP growth. According to the bank’s estimates, excluding the public sector and manufacturing, the remaining sectors have shown virtually zero growth since the beginning of 2025. Raiffeisenbank also views this as a sign of increasing economic segmentation.
Until recently, the external sector had partially offset this situation. PSB Bank analysts report that export-oriented sectors recovered in the second quarter thanks to rising commodity prices amid the conflict in the Middle East. However, according to the Price Index Center, the composite price index for Russian commodity exports decreased by 16.9 percentage points between May 22 and June 19. Meanwhile, the oil market has almost completely shed the geopolitical premium that emerged following the escalation of tensions surrounding Iran. Following a recent spike, the price of Brent has fallen again to around $73 per barrel.
RBC: One Chinese restriction deals blow to US independence in rare earth sector
On June 22, the Chinese Commerce Ministry imposed a complete ban on the export of dual-use goods, which include, among other things, rare earth metals and equipment for their processing, to ten US companies. Eight of these companies are defense contractors and drone manufacturers that use rare-earth magnets in their products, including Ball Aerospace, Oshkosh Defense, and L3Harris. The other two, MP Materials and USA Rare Earth, are rare earth metal producers. Both companies are key elements of Washington’s strategy to reduce reliance on China for critical raw materials.
The Chinese ban is extraterritorial and took effect immediately; no organization worldwide may transfer goods of Chinese origin to the listed US companies. "If Washington views China’s civilian technological assets as part of its military-industrial base, then Beijing is beginning to view the US rare-earth, drone, and aerospace supply chains as a single military framework," Sofia Mangileva, an independent expert on the rare-earth metals market, told RBC, outlining the logic behind the response.
However, Beijing’s ability to enforce the ban is limited, Pavel Pavlov, a senior researcher at the Center for International Trade Studies at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, noted. He pointed out that it will be difficult for China to track the entire export supply chain in practice. "If necessary, such sanctions can be bypassed through re-export involving one or more intermediaries from third countries," he stressed.
The US-China conflict theoretically creates an opportunity for Russia to supply rare earths, but significant structural barriers remain, experts note. "The main barriers are not geology, but separation technology, the economics of processing, the lack of significant domestic demand for magnets, sanctions restrictions on equipment, and a long investment horizon," Mangileva emphasized. Rafael Abdulov, an associate professor at the National University of Science and Technology MISIS, confirmed this: Russia lacks the industrial capacity for separation, enrichment, and deep processing. "It is impossible to purchase equipment due to sanctions; there are no significant subsidies; and, moreover, the domestic market for rare earth metals is limited," he added.
"Every new episode of trade escalation between Washington and Beijing expands the potential markets for the Russian industry," Pavel Pavlov, a senior researcher at the Center for International Trade Research at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), told RBC. However, taking advantage of the situation will require years of investment. The window of opportunity may close before Russia can ramp up its production capacity.
TASS is not responsible for the material quoted in these press reviews